EN BANC
[G.R. No. 135542.
July 18, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. REYNALDO VIÑALON Y SAN AGUSTIN and ARNOLD DEVERA Y MOCALEN, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
Before us on
automatic review is the decision[1] dated August 13, 1998, of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, finding appellants Reynaldo
Viñalon y San Agustin and Arnold Devera y Mocalen guilty of robbery with
homicide and sentencing each to suffer the penalty of death.
The appellants
were indicted under the following Information:
That on
or about the 24th
day of September, 1997, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said appellants, conspiring,
confederating with other persons whose true names, identities, whereabouts and
other personal circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually
helping one another, with intent to gain and by means of violence and
intimidation against persons, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously rob PO1 Joseph H. Llave of the PNP National Capital Region Command,
Norman A. Mapa and Reynaldo B. Elidio in the following manner, to wit: on the date in the place aforementioned, the
said appellants, posing themselves as passengers boarded a Jell Transport
passenger bus with Plate No. PXC-266 and while said bus was cruising along
Commonwealth Avenue near Don Antonio Avenue, Brgy. Old Balara, this City, a
public highway, appellants armed with handguns and bladed weapon announced a
hold up and thereafter robbed and divested them of their personal properties,
to wit:
PO1 Joseph H. Llave
1. One (1)
firearm, cal. .45 pistol marked Armscor with SN 748966;
2. One (1) men’s watch;
Norman A. Mapa
1. Cash money amounting to P5,000.00
representing the day’s collection.
Reynaldo B. Elidio
1. One (1) Men’s watch
(Seiko-5)-----------------P1,600.00;
Philippine
Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the offended parties within the amount
aforementioned; further that by reason or on the occasion of the said robbery,
and for the purpose of enabling the said appellants to take, steal and carry
away the aforementioned articles, the said appellants in pursuance of their
conspiracy, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superior
strength, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and use personal violence upon the person of one PO1 Joseph H. Llave by
then and there shooting him on the different parts of his body thereby
inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death thereafter; that likewise on the same occasion of
the robbery appellants shot with the use of handguns Norman A. Mapa hitting him
on the face and Antonio C. Hernandez hitting him on the hip thereby causing
them serious physical injuries which have required medical attendance for a
period of more than 30 days, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended
parties.
Contrary to law.[2]
Upon
arraignment, both appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued.
The prosecution
presented Jimmy Solomon, the bus driver; Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra, a
medico-legal officer from the PNP Crime Laboratory Services; PO3 Pedro
Walawala, the investigating officer; Dr. Reynaldo Perez, examining doctor of
victims Norman[3] Mapa and Antonio Fernandez;
Reynaldo Elidio, a passenger; and PO3 Bernard Amigo, the arresting officer.
JIMMY SOLOMON
testified that on September 24, 1997 at around 1:00 A.M., he was driving a Jell
Transport bus with at least 30 passengers on board going to Fairview, Quezon
City. Upon reaching Ever Gotesco in
Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, appellants and two others announced
a heist. One of the hold-up men, later
identified as appellant Arnold Devera, poked an ice pick at Solomon while his
cohorts started divesting passengers of their jewelries and other personal
belongings.
According to
Solomon, one of the passengers, later identified as PO1 Joseph Llave, engaged
the hold-up men in a shoot-out. PO1
Llave was able to shoot appellant Viñalon in the stomach but himself sustained
three gunshot wounds -- two at the head and one at the chest area. Solomon stated that during the shoot-out,
stray bullets hit the bus conductor, Norman Mapa, and one of the passengers,
Antonio Fernandez. The hold-up men then
directed him to stop the bus and they all alighted.
Solomon added
that later, he and the remaining passengers on board proceeded to the Litex
Police Detachment where he gave a statement to the police.[4] From the police station, they
brought PO1 Llave to the Malvar General Hospital but he was pronounced dead on
arrival.
DR. MA. CRISTINA
FREYRA conducted an autopsy on the body of PO1 Llave.[5] She testified that she found
gunshot wounds on the forehead, on the right lower portion of the nose, and on
the right breast of the deceased, all of which were fatal.[6] She stated that the cause of
Llave’s death was hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds.
The testimony of
PO3 PEDRO WALAWALA was dispensed with as both parties admitted that he was the
investigator of the case and that he had no personal knowledge of the incident
itself.[7]
DR. REYNALDO F.
PEREZ, the doctor who treated passengers Norman Mapa and Antonio Fernandez,[8] no longer took the witness stand
because the parties admitted the contents of the Medico-Legal Certificate he
prepared, showing that Mapa was shot at the left axillary area[9] and Fernandez was shot at the right
lateral pelvic area.[10]
REYNALDO ELIDIO,
a passenger, corroborated the testimony of Solomon as to the details and
sequence of events. Further, Elidio
identified Viñalon as the one who poked a gun at him and took his watch.[11] He stated that out of the other
three assailants, he could only identify Devera whom he saw poke an ice pick at
the bus driver.[12] He also stated that he saw Viñalon
shoot PO1 Llave at the forehead and at the chest[13] with a .45 caliber pistol.[14] According to him, he identified the
appellants as their aggressors at the Malvar Hospital where they brought PO1
Llave.[15] Witness Elidio affirmed that he
executed a sworn statement before PO3 Pedro Walawala.[16]
PO3 BERNARD
AMIGO testified that on September 24, 1997, his superior sent him, SPO2 Quinto,
and SPO2 Makabarek to check on the hold-up incident.[17] They proceeded to the Malvar
General Hospital and later some of the passengers arrived and pinpointed
appellants as the assailants.[18] Viñalon was then being treated for
a gunshot wound.[19] After ascertaining their
identities, the policemen frisked appellants and found in Viñalon’s pocket four
wristwatches, a wallet with cash, and identification papers belonging to PO1
Llave.[20] Seized from Devera were three
bladed instruments, three gold rings, and a pair of earrings.[21]
For the defense,
appellant Reynaldo Viñalon, co-appellant Arnold Devera, and Viñalon’s wife,
Diory Viñalon, took the witness stand.
Appellant
REYNALDO VIÑALON testified that on September 23, 1997, his wife instructed him
to go to Fairview, Quezon City for her brother’s despedida party.[22] At around 10:30 P.M., he boarded a
Jell bus bound for Fairview and dozed off along the way. He was awakened by gunfire and realized he
was shot.[23] He disclaimed taking part in the
robbery.[24] He also denied knowing his
co-appellant who took him to the Malvar General Hospital[25] and added that it was his wife who
spent for his medical treatment.[26] He claimed that the case against
him was filed without prior investigation.[27]
His wife, DIORY
VIÑALON, corroborated his testimony.[28]
Appellant ARNOLD
DEVERA, for his part, testified he was merely a passenger of the bus. He said that he brought appellant Viñalon to
the Malvar General Hospital out of pity.[29] He denied poking an ice pick at the
bus driver or being part of the hold-up gang.[30]
On August 13,
1998, the trial court convicted appellants, sentencing them as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the two (2) appellants, Reynaldo Viñalon y Agustin and Arnold
Devera y Mocalen, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the Special Complex Crime
of Robbery with Homicide defined in and penalized by paragraph 1 of Article 294
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, and, there being
one aggravating circumstance of “Band” (paragraph 6, Article 14, Revised Penal
Code) without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, are hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH.
Both appellants are ordered to indemnify the heirs of the late PO1
Joseph H. Llave the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity.
The watch (Exh. “I”) of Reynaldo B.
Elidio, the belongings (Exhs. “J” to “J-2”) of the late PO1 Joseph H. Llave and
the other valuables (Exhs. “K”, “L”, “M”, “N” “O” & “P”) including the
knife (Exh. “Q”) shall be kept by the Court until the final termination of this
case.
Both appellants are ordered to pay
the costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[31]
Thus, appellants
interposed this appeal seeking reversal of the judgment of the trial court on
two grounds, viz.:
I
THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE WHEN THEIR GUILT HAS NOT PROVED [SIC] BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
GRANTING
ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, STILL THE
LOWER COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY AFTER APPRECIATING THE
ATTENDANCE OF THE GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF A BAND IN THE COMMISSION
OF THE CRIME.[32]
From appellants’
discussion of the assigned errors, the following emerge as issues for our
consideration: (1) the validity of the warrantless arrest and the search and
seizure incident thereto; (2) the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to
convict appellants for the crime of robbery with homicide; and (3) the
propriety of the penalty imposed.
Concerning the
first issue, appellants aver that the police conducted the warrantless arrest
based upon unconfirmed suspicion. On
this score, we have previously held that a warrantless arrest may be made by
police officers based on their personal knowledge culled from the victim
herself who pointed to the suspect as the assailant at the time of the arrest.[33] In our view, the arrest of
appellants done immediately after the incident was valid for it was made by the
arresting officers after the victims of the robbery pointed to appellants as
the malefactors. Accordingly, the
search and seizure that ensued are valid as incidental to a lawful arrest.[34]
However,
appellants seek to nullify the seizure of the objects allegedly taken from
their possession. They claim they do
not constitute admissible evidence as they were not duly receipted nor properly
identified at the time they were taken.
Cited in this
regard is the case of People vs. Gesmundo,[35] which stated that the officer
seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt to the
lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure was
made. Note, however, that Gesmundo involved
a search and seizure made pursuant to a warrant, and not to a situation of
seizure incidental to warrantless arrest, as in the present case. Here, arresting officer Amigo testified that
indeed he seized the disputed items from appellants but he did not issue a
receipt.[36] He claimed that the seized items
were entered in the logbook of the security guard of the hospital where
appellants were arrested. But this
claim was unsubstantiated, as the logbook was not presented nor made part of
the record of the case. Not only did
the credibility of his testimony suffer thereby, but this circumstance also
negated the probative force and value of the said items as evidence for the
prosecution.
However, coming
to the second issue, we find that appellants’ guilt was proven beyond
reasonable doubt by the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and other
evidence on record. In the present
case, two of the victims positively identified appellants as the ones who
staged the hold-up along with two other John Does. Solomon, the bus driver, categorically stated that Devera poked a
bladed weapon at him and that he saw his face through the mirror in front of him.[37] He said he had a clearer view of
appellants’ faces when they alighted from the bus.[38] Elidio, one of the victims whose
watch was taken by appellant Viñalon, corroborated Solomon’s account of the
incident on all material points. It is
worth noting that these witnesses had no ill motive to falsely testify against
appellants whom they had never met before.
Further, the medico-legal report concerning PO1 Llave dovetailed with
Solomon’s and Elidio’s testimonies that PO1 Llave was shot in the head and in
the chest.
Appellants’
defense of denial of any wrongdoing, by claiming that they were just among the
passengers of the bus, is far from convincing.
The defense of denial, like alibi, is considered with suspicion and
always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and
unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily.[39] Their bare-faced denial cannot
prevail over their positive identification as the malefactors by eyewitnesses
who had no motive to falsely testify against them.[40]
The presence of
conspiracy between appellants has also been proved amply. It is easily deducible from Devera’s act of
poking an ice pick at the driver while Viñalon was divesting the passengers of
their valuables. Their acts,
collectively and individually executed, demonstrated the existence of a common
design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose and objective:
to hold up the bus and divest the passengers of their cash and other
valuables. Conspiracy is also proved by
their concerted action in shooting it out against the police officers and in
leaving the vehicle together after divesting the valuables from the passengers
of the bus.
PO1 Llave’s slay
bears a direct relation and intimate connection to the robbery, for it happened
during and on the occasion of the robbery.
Although it was Viñalon who pulled the trigger, both appellants are
equally liable in the light of the rule that when a group of malefactors
conspire to commit a robbery and arm themselves for the purpose, no member of
the group may disclaim responsibility for any act of violence that is
perpetrated by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery.[41] Such violence is always reasonably
to be expected, either to overcome active opposition or to forestall it
altogether by disabling the victim at the very outset, or to silence him
completely thereafter.
The penalty
imposed on appellants, however, must be modified. The trial court imposed the death penalty based on its conclusion
that the aggravating circumstance of “in band”[42] attended the commission of the
robbery. This conclusion is negated by
the facts at hand.
Robbery is
deemed to have been committed by a band when more than three armed
malefactors took part in the commission thereof.[43] While it can be conceded that
appellants Devera and Viñalon were indeed armed with an ice pick and a gun
respectively, the records, however, are bereft of proof that the two
unidentified muggers were also armed.
For one, prosecution eyewitness Solomon testified that he did not see
whether or not the two other hold-up men were armed.[44] Next, while prosecution witness
Elidio stated in his affidavit that all four of the hold-up men were armed when
they announced a hold-up (apat na holdaper na armado ng patalim at baril, at
sila ay nagsabi ng “Holdap”),[45] he, however, admitted during his
testimony in court that he could not identify the two other malefactors nor did
he see whether or not they were armed.[46] His testimony on the witness stand
should be held more weighty than his affidavit, for ex parte affidavits
are generally subordinated in importance to declarations made in open court.[47] Thus, we find that for lack of
sufficient proof the aggravating circumstance of “in band” must be ruled
out. It follows that there being
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attending the commission of the
offense, the proper penalty to be imposed should be reclusion perpetua.[48]
Accordingly, the
grant of damages needs to be modified.
The sum of P50,000 is properly awarded as civil indemnity for the
wrongful death of PO1 Llave without need of proof other than the fact of death
of the victim.[49] In addition, another sum of P50,000
for moral damages should be awarded to the heirs of PO1 Joseph Llave in line
with current jurisprudence.[50] The belongings of PO1 Llave should
be restored to his heirs, and so should the valuables now kept in court
properly returned to their true owners, while the exhibits were instruments of
the crime should be confiscated for proper disposition according to law.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellants Reynaldo Viñalon and Arnold Devera are found guilty of robbery with
homicide and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They are ordered to jointly and severally
pay the heirs of PO1 Joseph Llave P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000
as moral damages, together with the costs.
Let the belongings and valuables now kept in court be returned to their
true owners, including the heirs of the deceased PO1 Joseph Llave and the bus
passengers concerned, while those that are instruments of the crime are
confiscated for proper disposition by the trial court.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo,
(Acting C.J.), Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., on
official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp.
20-30.
[2] Id. at
5-6.
[3] “Glen” in other parts of the records.
[4] Exhs. “A” to “A-2”, Rollo, p. 22.
[5] TSN, December 16, 1997, pp. 3-4.
[6] Id. at
5-6.
[7] TSN, January 27, 1998, p. 2.
[8] TSN, February 3, 1998, p. 3.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Id. at 4.
[11] TSN, February 24, 1998, pp. 3-4.
[12] Id. at 4.
[13] Id. at 14.
[14] Id. at 15.
[15] Id. at 9.
[16] Ibid.
[17] TSN, February 16, 1998, pp. 4-6.
[18] Id. at 17.
[19] Id. at 7.
[20] Id. at
8-11.
[21] Id. at
12-13.
[22] TSN, March 4, 1998, pp. 5-6.
[23] Id. at
8-9.
[24] Id. at
10-11.
[25] Id. at 9.
[26] Id. at 11.
[27] Ibid.
[28] TSN, March 18, 1998, pp. 1-4.
[29] TSN, April 15, 1998, pp. 3-4.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Rollo, p.
30.
[32] Id. at
43-44.
[33] People vs. Alvario, G.R. Nos. 120437-41, 275 SCRA 529, 542 (1997).
[34] People vs. Andal, et al., G.R. No. 124933, 279 SCRA 474, 493, (1997).
[35] G.R. No. 89373, 219 SCRA 743, 752 (1993).
[36] TSN, February 16, 1998, pp. 21-22.
[37] TSN, January 15, 1998, pp. 3-4.
[38] Id. at 5.
[39] People vs.
Batidor, G.R. No. 126027, 303 SCRA 335, 350 (1999).
[40] People vs. Mamalayan, et al., G.R. No. 115282, 280 SCRA 748, 760 (1997).
[41] People vs. Vallente, G.R. No. L-37937, 144 SCRA 495, 507 (1986).
[42] ART. 14, Revised Penal Code: Aggravating
circumstances. – The following are aggravating circumstances:
xxx
6. That
the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited place, or by a
band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever
more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission
of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
xxx
[44] Supra,
note 37 at 6.
[45] Rollo, pp.
95-96.
[46] TSN, February 24, 1998, pp. 4-5, 11.
[47] People vs. Yanson-Dumancas, et al., G.R. Nos. 133527-28, 320 SCRA 584, 606 (1999),
citing People v. Padao, G.R. No. 104400, 267 SCRA 64, 76 (1997).
[48] People vs.
Cachola, et al., G.R. No. 135047, March 16, 2001, p. 11, citing People vs. Lozada,
G.R. No. 130589, 334 SCRA 602, 623 (2000).
[49] People vs.
Bayang, et al., G.R. No. 134402,
February 5, 2001, p. 10.
[50] People vs. Ereño, G.R. No. 124706, 326 SCRA 157, 169 (2000).